B
billsherman
Guest
There is nothing that can be debated with someone who doesn’t understand the difference between a peer reviewed paper and published proceedings.
- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
Here’s a quote from Kurt Wise, who got a phd in paleontology from Harvard and is the director of Creation Research at some ‘university’. It sums up the situation quite well:PickyPicky:
I’m sorry to hear that. I wish I knew how to fight it effectively, but the internet seems only to have convinced anti-intellectuals that they are somehow critical thinker because they “do research” by watching youtube videos that “confirm” everything they already knew.
As a general rule, you aren’t intellectual if you never change your mind. There is nothing more anti-intellectual than mocking those who constantly refine their views with more and better evidence. We, of course, see evidence of that in this very thread.
It is, I believe, an insult to God to refuse to use the ability to reason that he gave us.
“As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Sanford’s paper on overlapping codes is peer reviewed. Can we discuss it now?
Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism versus Design is peer reviewed - let’s discuss.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It sums up the situation quite well:
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. Prof Richard Lewontin, geneticist, atheist
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I’ve a pretty good idea but it would be nice to have it confirmed. But don’t do none of that breath holdin’ business.billsherman:
I’d like to know this.
F
Freddy
Guest
So some went south and became Egyptians and some went east and became Chinese. And some went west and became Aztecs and some went north and became Innuit and some went further south and became Aborigines. And developed new languages, forgot about wheels, developed completely different religious beliefs and all this was in about 200 or so generations.Freddy:
The sons of Noah and their generations spread out and took the account of the flood with them.
Quite an achievement.
F
Freddy
Guest
But as that paper says, the biosynthesis of arginine depends on ornithine carbamoyltransferase (ArgF), which has an essential arginine residue in its active site, and the biosynthesis of lysine depends on diaminopimelate decarboxylase (LysA) which requires a lysine residue to form a Schiff-base link-age to its PLP prosthetic group.
As you fully well know, lysine residues are not required to form prosthetic groups. I’m sure I’ve pointed this out before. So we can discount the paper in it’s entirety. Perhaps you have another?
B
buffalo
Guest
Wow, call me impressed with the quick research. And no you never pointed this out before. You never answered papers until now.
Did the paper pass peer review and no one caught this except you? Hmmmmm - smells… link the paper rebuttal and I will study it.
F
Freddy
Guest
There’s no paper. This is common knowledge if you know anything about chemistry. Do you seriously think prosthetic groups require lysine? They might if there are other aliphatic amino acids available. Any suggestions as to which ones could work? I mean, do you actually understand this stuff or are you just tossing out links to papers without any grasp of the science involved?Freddy:
Wow, call me impressed with the quick research. And no you never pointed this out before. You never answered papers until now.
Did the paper pass peer review and no one caught this except you? Hmmmmm - smells… link the paper rebuttal and I will study it.
H
Hume
Guest
Genetic entropy is garbage because life is not a closed system.Hume:
You must not understand genetic entropy to post that as an answer.
https://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869
Moreover, the fossil record slays it. As any school-child would know, the earliest forms of life were very simple unicellular organisms. Then came less simple multicellular organisms. Then came animalia and plantae.
Life displays the exact opposite of genetic entropy, thus any defense for this dumpster-class idea derives from its value as a “defense” for some other, greater ideological entrenchment (like biblical hyper-literalism).
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Not true.
A sample from a site below;
"I’ve compile several quotations by Early Church Fathers showing their unified allegorical interpretation of the Genesis 1-2 narrative. Irenaeus, Barnabus, Augustine, Origen, and Basil the Great are available online here: http://www.ccel.org/index/author."
A sample from a site below;
"I’ve compile several quotations by Early Church Fathers showing their unified allegorical interpretation of the Genesis 1-2 narrative. Irenaeus, Barnabus, Augustine, Origen, and Basil the Great are available online here: http://www.ccel.org/index/author."
A
Anrakyr
Guest
I was Catholic but the continual droning of “Bible or science” wore on me to much. You shouldn’t have to choose.
You do you mate but incase you haven’t notice it’s not like I’m here recruiting for Odin. I’m here because I still care, because Catholics should know their faith. I like watching people learn and grow. I find it cathartic.
I don’t tell people to think contrary to Rome but I do think the church laity could be better informed.
There’s dogma and then there’s application of daily life.
You go right ahead I don’t question your dogma.
I question your rational of daily life.
Lest @billsherman and @Freddy entertain what if.
We can’t grow as a species of we don’t ask that question.
You do you mate but incase you haven’t notice it’s not like I’m here recruiting for Odin. I’m here because I still care, because Catholics should know their faith. I like watching people learn and grow. I find it cathartic.
I don’t tell people to think contrary to Rome but I do think the church laity could be better informed.
There’s dogma and then there’s application of daily life.
You go right ahead I don’t question your dogma.
I question your rational of daily life.
Lest @billsherman and @Freddy entertain what if.
We can’t grow as a species of we don’t ask that question.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
And could you confirm that the original paper had been peer reviewed? The writers work for the Biologic Institute which is an offshoot of the ID guys - The Design Institute. Set up to try to convince everyone that they were doing research. And claiming a research facility in Seattle which never existed. The ‘Institute’ was just a rented office in Redmond, WA.Freddy:
Did the paper pass peer review and no one caught this except you?
The Discovery Institute actually stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute ‘in secret’ to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community (source: wiki). And a picture of one of their employers working at their ‘research lab’ turned out to be a doctored photo superimposing the guys head on a stock photo.
You can’t make this stuff up…
R
Rau
Guest
Every heard of photosynthesis?
F
Freddy
Guest
I suspect she will be again soon - that is if the show is not put on hiatus again as it was many years ago. Honestly it needed something more than making the Doctor female to freshen it up a bit and I have no problem with that but the show has turned into ‘PC brigade in a box’ at this point with agonizingly dull stories at times.
[/quote]
Have to admit that I was a fan waaaaaay back when it was a clunky kids series back in the day, but I haven’t seen it since then except for checking out how Whittaker was doing as the new female Doc. Production values have gone up and I still have a nostalgic connection but not my type of viewing these days.
[/quote]
Have to admit that I was a fan waaaaaay back when it was a clunky kids series back in the day, but I haven’t seen it since then except for checking out how Whittaker was doing as the new female Doc. Production values have gone up and I still have a nostalgic connection but not my type of viewing these days.
B
buffalo
Guest
The reference https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bi034769a I would have to purchase. It is acknowledged in the citations list.
B
buffalo
Guest
Correct. …
T
TMC
Guest
Wait, so you are saying Catholics still hold to geocentrism?
W
whatistrue
Guest
…who want to get an unbiased evaluation of the veracity of a claim or the reliability of a source.
Just because they disagree with your position doesn’t make them false.
Just because they disagree with your position doesn’t make them false.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Literal to the Church in referring to the “literal sense” of Scripture is not the same as “literal” in a modern English dictionary. Literal to the Church refers to the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation; it does not mean taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
- Status